Well, good to know it made sense to someone, but let me put it differently.
You're objection to quantum mechanics explaining the big bang is that such an event requires something to exist in order for a quantum event to happen, but there's no reason to assume that what created our universe has to be something completely alien from our own. As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand. We're tiny, naive and ignorant creatures, who are but a tiny nothing of just our own, known universe.
You're just assuming a "multiverse" (for which no evidence exists and is clearly mere conjecture) actually exists and are then just attributing this supposed multiverse with godly qualities (spaceless, immaterial, etc).
I never said that said multiverse has
you're godly qualities, I in fact said that these qualities don't have to be alien - that is, that which created our universe could very easily have spacelike, timelike, materiallike properties. Also, "mere conjecture" is not conjecture based upon unexplainable features of reality, math, and explainable features of reality. Conjecture? Yes, and I have always admitted that.
In order to escape the perfectly reasonable conclusion of a creator, you take a leap of faith and simply postulate "well, the multiverse could have caused our universe to come into existence" and then attribute the multiverse with god-like qualities. Why assume a multiverse exists? Why assume the alleged multiverse has godly qualities?
Why assume the multiverse exists? I'm not assuming the multiverse exists. I'm acknowledging that the multiverse
could exist.
I never assumed that the multiverse does have godly qualities, I said it could be "God," because as Rathma pointed out above, at some point the discussion has to define God, and there are certain definitions of "God" I couldn't deny. I mean, one some level I'm really suggesting to you is maybe that which created our universe is "God," but that God isn't an agent who decided, and freely made the universe.
Merely postulating the existence of a multiverse serves only to push the beginning back a step. A multiverse would still be nothing more than an amalgamation of space, time, energy and matter yet on a much grander scale.
Do you read what I write, or just respond with an argument already in place that I'm making?
As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand.
If the multiverse is part of something even larger, who am I or you to make claims as to it's existence, the nature of it's existence, and possibly think we could answer why it exists? Not that I think these answers are possible, ever, to know.
I mean really, all you're doing is positing a multiverse, of sorts, but saying this something larger involves God, with the properties you attribute to God (spacelessness, timelessness, etc), without ever answering the question if it's possible "to exist" without being in space, in time, material, etc, or answering how such an "entity," "thing," or "being" could create the Universe. You're basically critiquing your own argument, and it's not a critique I disagree with.
Topic: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism (Read 35303 times)
